From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 21:41:10 -0800 (PST)
To: "Attila T. Hun" <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible
Message-ID: <199702060541.VAA13773@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 02:41 PM 2/5/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote:
>
>+Put simply, "anarchy is not the lack of order.  It is the lack of
>+_orders_."
>
>    disagree. pure anarchy is not the lack of "orders" --pure anarchy 
>    implies that everyone is imbued with that perfect sense of 
>    responsibility.

>From which hat do you pull this rabbit?

>
>+>        anarchy is only possible in an ideal world where _everyone_ 
>+>    assumes not only responsibility for themselves, but for the common 
>+>    good.  no malice, no greed, no need for assassination politics....
>
>+No, that's traditional thinking and that's wrong.  See AP part 8. 
>+Freud  believed (as "everyone" else believed, even myself, before AP)
>+that anarchy  was inherently unstable.  But it ISN'T, if the tools of
>+AP are used to  stabilize it.  And no, no altruism is necessary for AP
>+to work as well; no  individuals are being asked to sacrifice
>+themselves for the common good.    Rather, they are given the
>+opportunity to work to achieve a reward offered,  cumulatively, by a
>+number of citizens.
>
>    aah, but that is the difference between a _pure_ anarchy and a  
>    _popular_ anarchy.  A pure _anarchy_ is sufficiently idealistic in 
>    that _noone_ lacks the necessary resonsibility to keep society 
>    moving, each individual in their own niche.

Why, exactly, is it "necessary" to "keep society moving"?   Isn't that 
somewhat of a contradiction in terms?  (particularly when you are discussing 
the subject, "anarchy."  It seems you don't really understand what the word 
"anarchy" means.   Sigh.


>   As long as there is 
>    perfect responsibility in a perfect anarchy, then there is no need 
>    for AP.

Are you saying that for  a world that has ALREADY achieved anarchy, and we 
presume "perfect responsibility," AP is not necessary to maintain this 
state?   Well, that's a rather limited assertion; some would argue it's 
practically meaningless.  

Isn't that somewhat like saying, "A perfectly-balanced inverted pendulum 
needs no mechanism to keep it pointing straight up."?  True, perhaps, but 
how do you get that "perfectly-balanced" part right?


>    AP is a negative, or _punative_, influence; I might liken it to the 
>    Catholic Church which is a religion of fear, and an instrument of
>    political control.

Actually, it's quite the opposite:  AP is the absolute prohibition on and/or 
destruction of any "instrument of political control."

Now, to a person who thinks that the natural state of the world is a 
condition of political control (and it wouldn't be hard to understand why a 
person could come to this conclusion, given the bulk of history), the 
ABSENSE of political control "looks like" political control.

This is, obviously, akin to the optical illusion where you stare intently at 
a pattern of color on a page (the American flag is often used) for a minute 
or two, and then you suddenly glance towards a white sheet of paper on 
which, as I recall, immediately appears a complementary flag of green and 
black stripes, and black stars on a yellow field.

AP destroys the mechanisms that societies use for much political control.  

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com